Brandon Black wrote:
On 11/30/06, Alvar Freude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having more teams should be good for several reasons: we can show
that Perl
isn't dead (at the moment it looks half-dead), and there are more
options
to choose from.
IMHO, Perl does *not* look half dead.
If a lot of people outside the Perl community say it looks half dead,
then it does to them.
Ignoring and/or denying doesn't make it better, you have to accept the
feedback and react to it.
The rate of CPAN modules uploaded per year continues to rise, anyone
could name a litany of high and low profile sites that still run perl,
and the perl job market is great. Active cutting-edge development
continues in both p5 and of course the various p6-related efforts.
Perl has never been a slick, well-marketed language, but it is still
the duct-tape of the Internet.
But the problem is nobody outside the Perl community notices it.
And p5 development is not as active as you might think,
just take a look at the comments under
http://use.perl.org/~sri/journal/31519.
The quote "Perl5 is not dead, it's just very, very stable" sums it up
quite well.
In spite of Perl's complete lack of kissing up to the "Enterprise"
world, it's still an A-rated language on the TIOBE index:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.htm?tiobe_index
But it's losing a lot of ground to Python and Ruby recently.
(http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/04/state_of_the_computer_book_mar_3.html)
--
sebastian
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
